wrunderwood commented on PR #96: URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/96#issuecomment-1687150222
> On Jun 2, 2023, at 1:41 AM, Jan Høydahl ***@***.***> wrote: > @wrunderwood <https://github.com/wrunderwood> , @atris <https://github.com/atris> , it's a shame that this fine PR was abandoned due to bike shedding. Perhaps 24 months distance can help put it in a new light and get this ball rolling again? I'm also keen on CB on the update side of Solr. > Replying to this from the beginning of the summer. Where I work now, we use circuit breakers and the current ones aren’t really doing the job, so I wish this patch had been accepted back then. I’m trying to make some time to revisit it, but it isn’t on our schedule yet. The experience certainly was discouraging and not very close to Yonik’s Law of Patches, if that is still a thing in Solr. That was a working, tested, and documented fix that was rejected. I did look at doing it in two steps, as one comment suggested. I think that makes more of a mess, because it means documenting the CPU circuit breaker as using load average, then breaking that documented behavior when it is fixed to use CPU. As one big change, we can make the CPU CB use CPU and rename the current one to a Load Average CB. It would also be good to allow and even prefer thresholds like “1.00” instead of having “100” mean “1.0”. I didn’t do that work in the original patch. That could easily be layered on later. wunder Walter Underwood ***@***.*** http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
